Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible,
and Creation



Old Earth Creationism (Part 2):
5 Additional Evidences


Old Earth Creationism (Part 1): 8 Major Hermeneutic Proofs
Old Earth Creationism (Part 2): 5 Additional Evidences
Old Earth Creationism (Part 3): Answering Old Earth Objections


The Genesis Creation Account:
Additional Evidence for a Young Earth

In addition to these 8 reasons, there are also 5 addition compelling arguments for why Genesis 1 must be interpreted in terms of literal days and a young earth and is not compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable (or consequently, biological evolution).

First, the order of events in Genesis 1 is utterly incompatible with the order of events in both the naturalist scientific timetable as well as biological evolutionary theory. This argument is also expressed by creationist Mike Riddle, in his audio-visual presentation titled, “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?” available from Northwester Creation Network at nwcreation.net.

(It should be noted that the first half of this point will deal strictly with theistic evolution and the compatibility of Genesis 1 with biological evolution. Whether Genesis 1 is compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable will be addressed in the second half of this point as well as the second, third, and fourth points below.)

It is worth noting that evolutionary theory asserts that the birds evolved after the reptiles, placing the reptiles before the birds in the order of arrival. However, Genesis clearly places the origin of the birds on Day 5 and the origin of the land animals on Day 6.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Even if we were to adopt the theistic evolutionary proposal that all the “kinds” of organisms are being produced over time through evolution at God’s direction, Genesis 1 would still dictate an order of evolution that is irreconcilable with modern evolutionary theory. So, once again, evolutionary theory is shown to be with incompatible the creation account of Genesis 1.

But more importantly, concerning the naturalist scientific timetable, modern naturalist geological theory states that the earth began as a ball of molten, fiery rock or metal.

Ocean, General considerations, Origin of the ocean waters – There is little information on the early history of the Earth's waters. However, fossils dated from the Precambrian some 3.3 billion years ago show that bacteria and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) existed, indicating the presence of water during this periodThe presence of water on the Earth at even earlier times is not documented by physical evidence. It has been suggested, however, that the early hydrosphere formed in response to condensation from the early atmosphere. The ratios of certain elements on the Earth indicate that the planet formed by the accumulation of cosmic dust and was slowly warmed by radioactive and compressional heating. This heating led to the gradual separation and migration of materials to form the Earth's core, mantle, and crust. The early atmosphere is thought to have been highly reducing and rich in gases, notably in hydrogen, and to include water vapourThis water in liquid form accumulated in isolated depressions of the Earth's surface, forming the nascent oceans.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years. The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only about 3.9 billion years…Particles in the solar nebula condensed to form solid grains, and with increasing electrostatic and gravitational influences they eventually clumped together into fragments or chunks of rock. One of these planetesimals developed into the Earth. The constituent metallic elements sank toward the centre of the mass, while lighter elements rose toward the top…The increase in temperature became sufficient to heat the entire planet. Melting at depth produced liquids that were gravitationally light and thus rose toward the surface and crystallized to form the earliest crust. Meanwhile, heavier liquids rich in iron, nickel, and perhaps sulfur separated out and sank under gravity, giving rise to the core at the centre of the growing planet; and the lightest volatile elements were able to rise and escape by outgassing, which may have been associated with surface volcanic activity, to form the secondary atmosphere and the oceans.” Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

However, in the earliest part of the creation account, Genesis 1:1-2, the earth starts out as a ball of water with the land presumably submerged beneath the water until the third day, when dry land emerges at the surface.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Ocean – continuous body of salt water that is contained in enormous basins on the Earth's surface. When viewed from space, the predominance of the oceans on the Earth is readily apparent. The oceans and their marginal seas cover nearly 71 percent of the Earth's surface, with an average depth of 3,795 metres (12,450 feet). The exposed land occupies the remaining 29 percent of the planetary surface and has a mean elevation of only 840 metres (2,756 feet). Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth's surface.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Naturalistic geological theory and creation theory are simply contradictory here. In the first, the earth starts out as molten rock. In the second, the earth starts out covered with water with the land submerged under the water. This demonstrates that naturalist theory as a whole is incompatible with Genesis 1, which creates problems for suggesting that the naturalist timetable can be incorporated into Genesis 1.

Second, in Matthew 19:4 Jesus refers to the first six days of the creation week up until the creation of man as "the beginning."

Matthew 19: 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day (3117). 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (3117).

If the period of time from creation days 1 through 6 is said to take long ages in the amount of millions or billions of years, then Jesus' concept of the beginning becomes absurd. The reason is that Adam and Eve (whom Jesus is referring to) were only created a few thousand years or so ago. Even a very liberal Biblical estimate would place the creation of man within 20,000 years.

So, if "the beginning," took millions or billions of years and only several thousand years have taken place since, then "the beginning" is being used in a very nonsensical manner to refer to a disproportionately large amount of all time. By contrast, a more natural understanding of "the beginning" would include a roughly small amount of time at the onset of something rather than an enormous portion, which dwarfs the remaining portion that follows it. Consequently, in order to understand Jesus' reference to this period of time as "the beginning" it is more reasonable to understand the events of “the beginning” as taking a much shorter amount of time, such as six literal 24-hour days, rather than the millions or billions of years required by the naturalist scientific timetable. As a result, Jesus’ own words confirm not only the interpretation that the creation of the universe took a short time rather than long ages but they also confirm the several-thousand-year genealogical age of the earth as measured from Adam and Eve.

Third, there is the issue of historical interpretation. Christians understand that the Judeo-Christian scripture is God’s record of human history and his plan for mankind preserved and make known to men throughout all ages. Of course, some portions of scripture were revealed much later in history, after a great many generations of men had come and gone. However, the opening portions of scripture were written very early. Consequently, we ought to assume that the text of scripture was able to be understood by all men who had that text and looked diligently into it. In fact, this is a central principle in the grammatical-historical hermeneutic (method of interpretation), even constituting the “historical” component of that title. (For more information on the rules of Bible interpretation, please see our outline entitled, “Hermeneutic Systems and the Grammatical Historical Method” under the “Foundations of Our Theology and Hermeneutics” Section of our In-Depth Studies page.)

Thus, when we consider that the text of scripture must have been understandable to the men who read it this has implications for the interpretation of Genesis 1. The simple, undeniable fact is that down through the ages until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the arrival of geologists Charles Lyell and James Hutton and biological evolutionist Charles Darwin, absolutely no scholar or theologian interpreted Genesis 1 in terms of evolution or long ages of time.

Hutton, James – (1726-1797), a Scottish philosopher and chemist, was a pioneer in the field of geology. His main contributions included the ideas that Earth was immensely old and that its features were constantly and gradually changing...Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much too low.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside. “Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875), Scottish geologist, whose writings strongly influenced the development of modern geology…Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism. This theory says that the natural processes that change the earth in the present have operated in the past at the same gradual rate.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. “Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Charles Lyell, another Scottish geologist, was a principal proponent of Hutton's approach, emphasizing gradual change by means of known geologic processes...Hutton's doctrine of uniformitarianism and its importance as one of the fundamental philosophies of the geologic sciences…This, along with the increased recognition of the utility of fossils in interpreting rock successions, made it possible to begin addressing the question of the meaning of time in Earth history.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Darwin, CharlesDarwin formulated his bold theory in private in 1837–39, after returning from a voyage around the world aboard HMS Beagle , but it was not until two decades later that he finally gave it full public expression in On the Origin of Species (1859), a book that has deeply influenced modern Western society and thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This fact is summarized in the book The Genesis Debate, which presents both the old earth and young earth creationist views. During the opening arguments presented by the young earth creationists, we find the following statement.

The History of Interpretation and Normal Creation Days – The history of interpretation confirms that the cumulative testimony of the Church favored normal creation days until the onslaught of certain scientific theories.” – J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall, The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Inc., copyright 2001, p. 47

After this summary, the following 5 (pages 47-52) pages of the book go on to cite examples of prominent theologians who all interpreted Genesis 1 in terms of a young earth and literal, 24-hour days. This list of examples includes Basil (329-379), Ambrose (339-387), Aquinas (1224-1274), Calvin (1509-1564), Luther (1483-1546), Ussher (1581-1656), and Lightfoot (1602-1675). A similar, even more detailed list is provided on pages 99-106, which includes as young earth creationists men such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Luther, and Calvin – a period that extends from 100-165 AD., when Justin Martyr lived, to 1509-1564, when John Calvin lived.

In fact, as we will see below at the end of this section, even today a vast majority of scholars, theologians, and linguists all agree that Genesis explicitly intends to describe a literal week of 24-hour days that occurred only a few thousand years ago. This puts us in the awkward position that if Genesis was intending to describe either the naturalist scientific timescale or biological evolution, then God wrote a text in normal, narrative format, which no man could correctly understand for thousands of years. Assuming that the Genesis account was written by Moses, who lived in the fourteenth or thirteenth century BC, that would leave about 1,350 years before Christ and about 1,850 years after Christ.

Mosesflourished 14th–13th century BC, Hebrew Moshe Hebrew prophet, teacher, and leader who, in the 13th century BCE (before the Common Era, or BC), delivered his people from Egyptian slavery.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This results in 3,100 years in which men could not understand Genesis correctly until modern science advanced enough and only 150 years in which Genesis could be correctly interpreted. This means that Genesis has not been correctly understandable for more than the first 95 percent of history since it was written. Conversely, if we understand that God intended scripture to be understandable and correctly understood by men who read and heard it, then we must take the unanimous historic testimony of Jews and Christians throughout the ages as a demonstration that a normal, sound reading of Genesis requires a young earth and a literal creation week of 24-hour days around 6,000 years ago. In fact, this conclusion is demanded of anyone who embraces the grammatical-historical method, which is the predominant method of textual scholars and theologians, particularly since the Reformation.

Fourth, closely related to the issue of historical interpretation is the issue of meaning and communication altogether. As indicated above, for at least the first 95 percent of human history since Genesis was written, humans read Genesis and concluded that the text indicates a creation week of seven, literal 24-hour days, which occurred about 6,000 years ago. The reason that this has been by far the predominant interpretation of the text throughout human history is because the plain meaning of the words is so clearly visible from a straightforward reading of the text. In order to avert the young earth interpretation from Genesis, it is necessary to so drastically unravel the meaning of sentences and words and context that communication itself becomes impossible.

“The whole language begins to fall apart when we begin adding information into God’s Word…He specifically chose the word 'day.' He was consistent with how He used it. He defined it for us. And then He wrote it down for us. What more evidence do we need that He meant six, literal days? And then consider this. What is the purpose of a language? The whole purpose of a language is to communicate. Now, whom is God trying to communicate with here in His Word? Us. Would it make any sense at all if God specifically chose the word “day,” was consistent with how He used it, defined it for us, and wrote it down for us, and then intended that to mean something else like long, indefinite periods of time? If that is the way that God is trying to communicate to us, how can we be sure of anything else in His Word then? The whole language falls apart.” – “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net, Windows Media, 32 minutes

Similarly, in his presentation entitled, “Evidence for a Young World,” creationist Dr. Russell Humphreys emphasizes the importance of this point even further.

“The point is that if we take scripture at face value, it’s very clear on this point. It says that God made the world in six, ordinary days not long ago. So, if the world were really as old as the media says it is, then we would only be left with two choices that I can see. One is to reject the scripture as being the Word of God. And I don’t like that, but that’s one of the choices. The other is to reinterpret the words of scripture until they mean whatever we think the current scientific theories are saying. But then if you have to twist these rather…simple words regarding a simple concept – a length of time – if we have to twist those words to mean something that they don’t appear to mean, then how can we rely upon any part of scripture. When Paul says to the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” maybe that word “believe” means something other than what we think it means. If we can’t rely on scripture for simple, statements about physical things, how can we then believe when it talks about things we can’t verify, spiritual things? So, this is a very important matter. It’s not just an academic question. It relates directly to the reliability of the Bible.” – “Evidence for a Young World,” Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc., Answers in Genesis, AnswersInGenesis.org, Copyright 2006, 5 minutes, 5 seconds

In summary, there is simply no way to reinterpret the text of Genesis, in order to make it compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable, without doing vital damage to both the science of textual interpretation and to the very function of communication, word meaning, and context. Consequently, the function of language and communication prevent us from reinterpreting the text of Genesis in order to accommodate the naturalist scientific timetable.

In conclusion, as a result of the proofs provided above, it is no surprise that the vast majority of scholars of the Hebrew Language, both Christian, Jewish, and secular, explicitly insist that Genesis is describing six, literal, 24-hour days and a young earth creation. In the quote below, creationist Mike Riddle provides some direct testimony from Hebrew scholars establishing this fact.

“Let’s see what some of the Hebrew scholars have to say then. Here’s Professor James Barr, Professor of Hebrew as the University of Oxford. Now, this man is a Hebrew scholar and he is not a Christian. And when he reads the language in Genesis, this is his conclusion. ‘Probably so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who dares not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that creation took place in a series of six days which are the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.’ Even non-Christians see what the language says. They just choose not to believe it. The language clearly says six, 24-hour periods. Here’s another gentleman, Dr. Robert Cole, Ph.D. Semitic Languages, the Hebrew language, says this, ‘There is nothing in the Bible to obviate the idea that the days in Genesis were 24-hour type days.’ Nothing to detract from the idea that they were 24-hour periods. This is the overwhelming consensus of the Hebrew scholars. The language says six, literal days, not ages. Then we have Robert L. Raymond, Ph.D., wrote a book called A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, ‘In the hundreds of other cases in the Old Testament where yom stands in conjunction with an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.), e.g. Exodus 12:15; 14:16; Leviticus 12:3, it never means anything other than a normal, literal day.’ That is the overwhelming consensus of the Hebrew scholars. That is what God’s Word says. And finally, Douglas F. Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology, writes this, ‘To summarize, liberal scholars of the both 19th and 20th centuries admit that the text of Genesis is clearly meant to be taken in a literal, historical sense although they deny its claims to speak accurately to our space time cosmos.’ Now here’s what he’s saying. Even many of the liberal scholars, when they read the language, will admit it says six days but they purposefully and willfully choose not to accept that.” – “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net, Windows Media, 39 minutes, 10 seconds

In closing, we can see that the text of Genesis is not compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable. Consequently, we cannot accept both as reliable and factual. Instead, we must investigate to see which model (the creation account recorded in scripture or the naturalist scientific timetable proposed by men of the 18th and 19th centuries AD), is indicated by the evidence. This is the subject of the additional article series found in this section, which examines the critical question of whether the evidence demonstrates evolution or creation. And here we arrive at the fifth and final reason why the naturalist scientific timetable and Genesis should not be combined. Simply put, as our series on evolution and creation will establish, there is simply no evidence for overarching naturalist theory as a whole in the first place, including the naturalist scientific timetable and biological evolution. Instead, the evidence disproves evolution and supports creationism.